Social networks are undoubtedly the modern disseminators of relevant news, and in large part, of controversial debates. This past week, a photo of Chief Raoni Metuktire was spread around Facebook. Raoni was shown crying in reaction to President Dilma Rousseff's authorization of the construction of the Belo Monte dam. Along with the photo came a collection of 600,000 signatures condemning plans to construct the dam, as well as a technical analysis of the dam's probable impact: the destruction of approximately 400,000 hectares of forest and the expulsion of around 40,000 persons from their natural habitat.

The Brazilian government defends the dam's construction as a measure essential to meeting the country's growing energy demand. However, arguments to the contrary seem more appealing and draw more support. These have led to a preliminary order for the suspension of exploratory and construction projects related to the Belo Monte proposal, rendered by Judge Martins of the Federal Court of First Region in a recent disposition [Portuguese].

The lawsuit was filed by the Altamira Association of Fish Breeders and Exporters (ACEPOAT), who asked to suspend any work that would interfere with the natural course of the Xingu River. From a legal standpoint, the preservation of national forests, flora and fauna are the constitutional obligations of each level of the Brazilian government. In fact, Article 225 of the Brazilian Constitution specifies the government's obligation, among others, to protect the flora and fauna so as to ensure the right of Brazilian citizens to an ecologically balanced environment.

Furthermore, the Brazilian Constitution devotes an entire chapter to the indigenous population  Title VIII, Chapter VIII. This chapter contains several provisions according to which the construction of the Belo Monte dam is unlawful. The article's main purpose is clear in its provision of constitutional rights to the indigenous peoples and the state's obligation to protect these rights. The next paragraphs, the first and second in particular, define the parameters and purpose of the lands traditionally occupied by indigenous persons, as well ensuring their protection. It is very important to note that the lands cited by this article are inalienable and indisposable; this reinforces the constitutional significance of rights to the lands. Also of interest is the fifth paragraph, which clearly prohibits the removal of indigenous persons from their constitutionally guaranteed lands, except in cases of catastrophe or epidemic which endanger the population. Additionally, Brazil's sovereign interest may also justify removal, but it must follow a decision of the National Congress, and most importantly, the land must be returned immediately upon the expiration of that interest. Of course, none of these exceptions apply to the case of Belo Monte. Lastly, the sixth paragraph provides that any action with the object to occupy, control or possess the protected land is null and void. An existing exception could be found in the public interest, as provided for by the "lei complementar," or laws complementing the constitution.

It appears that this article has in fact been extended to protect indigenous persons and the land which they inhabit, constituting a prima facie barrier to the dam's construction. As quoted by Ricardo Verdun, an advisor from the Institute for Socioeconomic Studies (INESC) in his article [Portuguese], this interpretation of Article 231 is shared by Deputy Attorney General of the Republic of the Federal Public Ministry, Dr. Sandra Cureau. Moreover, the construction of the plant violates Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation, duly ratified by Brazil via Legislative Decree 143 [Portuguese]. Another impediment is presented by federal prosecutors of the state of Para, who filed a Public Civil Action [Portuguese], arguing that the construction license is invalid for not having met the prerequisites established by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Natural Resources (IBAMA).

While the Brazilian government attempts to improve its image regarding Belo Monte at all costs, opposition groups  mostly nongovernmental organizations  continue to alert us of the inevitable harms of this project and put forth their best efforts to block it. While the latter have recently won a battle, they are not guaranteed to win the war. Given the case's complexity, delays in the justice system, and the fact that we are at the project's planning stages, the process is just beginning. It is difficult to speculate on the fate of Belo Monte and the region's indigenous population, since unknown political and economic motives are bound to dictate the future.